From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article 301 (Turkish penal code) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Article 301 (Turkish penal code):	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Expand: More on the history of the law and reasoning behind it

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 Article 301 of What? 1.2 unreferenced 1.3 POV 1.4 Joost Lagendijk 1.5 new law vs old law 1.6 Amnesty International 1.7 confused 1.8 Old law: Article 159 text 1.9 DO NOT LIE

[edit] Comments

[edit] Article 301 of What?

WS already has s:Constitution of the Republic of Turkey--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully resolved by name change and context in article. Lambiam^Talk 14:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unreferenced

The template unreferenced includes the following "This article or section does not cite its references or sources" (my highlighting). --Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that most of the article has citations I have removed the template. However it would be nice to have an English language source for Article 301 as few native English speakers would be able to translate the the original from Turkish so they have no way of verifying that the translation is correct. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So provided. The text in the article is different in a materially insignificant detail, but is a more literal translation of the original Turkish: The world kişi occurring in the first two clauses (follow the link to Türk Ceza Kanunu and search for "301"), not represented in the Amnesty translation, means "person", as can easily be checked[1]. --Lambiam^Talk 20:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Whatever the case, it is clear that the Article has a chilling effect on free expression, notwithstanding its fourth clause - I happen to agree, but the wording here seems like clear POV. Any chance of a more neutral version? Loganberry (Talk) 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a link has been given to show the context used in this paragraph. Richard001 04:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree that "whatever the case" is POV, so revised and added a source. Kelvinc 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joost Lagendijk

Unless someone objects I will remove this paragraph in a day or so. This paragraph doesn't quite make sense (I can't read dutch so I couldn't read the referenced article). The reason that it doesn't make sense is that no official action was taken against Joost Lagendijk, no prosecution, no court, no judgment, nothing. Somebody reports a crime, the prosecutor says "does not apply". Thats it. If there is something I'm missing please write it here before I delete the paragraph. Mdozturk 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur.. Baristarim 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that he was charged, and that this was a high-profile case, reported worldwide in the press, and still regularly being referenced as an illustration of the lack of freedom of opinion in Turkey. I think it is better to give accurate information here than just to omit it. What I'd like to see is an article on Kemal Kerinçsiz, which could help to put some things in perspective.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The case was brought by a private complaint. I can sue anyone I want to for any reason, but as long as the responsible judge says the case has no merits, it doesn't mean jack s... frankly. If that weren't the case, we could fill any article with all types of litigation and court-cases that have been dismissed by the judiciary. It is not being referenced "as an illustration of the lack of freedom of opinion" in Turkey. Did you know that for 2005 Turkey was ranked higher than Italy for its freedom of media? "Accurate information" is very subjective, if you bombard the reader with tons of cases that have never come to a conclusion, that is also not an "accurate portrayal" of the issue for pyschological reasons, you see what I mean? Baristarim 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't charged and there was no case! I think he wished he was charged and he wished it would be a high profile case but it didn't happen. You said it was "reported worldwide in the press", could you give some links from the english speaking press? I'd like to read more about this. Mdozturk 14:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link of an article in English stating he was charged: [2].  --Lambiam^Talk 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

False, he was not charged.. A complaint was brought against him. It is not my fault that news sites et al cannot make the difference. In Turkish law, a complaint is brought and it can be considered the Western equivalent of being "charged", however for it to really become "charged" in the Western sense, it has to be approved by the Prosecutor and the sitting judge must conclude that the case's merits are sufficient. Otherwise it has no importance. Prosecutors are obliged to file reports on the merits of all complaints brought to them by any person or group. Hurriyet's English addition doesn't count, they sometimes even make basic syntax mistakes, you cannot expect them to nail down complicated cross-country legal terminology. :) Baristarim 15:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided to keep the paragraph in the article. It seems like there was at least a official investigation made by the procecutor. So at the end article 301 was used for harass Joost Lagendijk. This should be included in the article.Mdozturk 14:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You decided to keep it? :)) You might want to read the wiki rules.. I think we are not connecting on how the legal system in Turkey works. Furthermore, this is purely orientalism at its worst, probably there are many other Turkish writers who might have faced prosecution, but who gives a f..??? A stupid Dutch guy is subject to a short-lived "official" investigation, let's put him in!!! How dare does that happen to a Dutch guy??? Turks? nah, they can go to hell, their lives aren't worth shit compared to a Dutch guy.. Give me a break. Good faith, eh? Better dig some better stuff. If you are going to keep it based on a badly-translated paragraph from Hurriyet, than I will delete it. For the moment I got other fish to fry, but when I find the time I will take a closer look at this article. Baristarim 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Before you dive in headfirst like that Baristarim, maybe you should consider the harrassment effect that Section 301 has on EVERYONE... you go off on a tangent saying "who gives a shit about Turks, but when it happens to a Dutch guy, let's put it in!" - this just shows your extremist views (though you love to parade around like you're neutral). The article mentions that prosecution is dropped against a lot of people but a lot of people go to trial under 301... the point is that no matter what happens, this statute is used to harrass and silence... think about it from the defendant's point of view - how does he/she feel? They know that an investigation could occur at any time because they dared to speak freely, and they don't know what the prosecution is thinking about whether or not the charges will dropped or what the court's sentence might be. Even if there's an investigation and charges are then dropped, don't you think that the defendant has suffered and got at least a little scared or intimidated? When other journalists see this happening to their colleagues, wouldn't at least SOME of them quiet down? You don't think it's significant that turkey now thinks it can push its weight around and is at least harrassing some foreign politicians too?

You don't think that charges might only be getting dropped because turkey is having a tough time getting into the EU and lengthy jail sentences for what amounts to free speech kind of "looks bad"? I doubt that you've had the legal training to look at an issue from all sides, or if you have, I'd still leave legal analysis to others... someone who can't see this statute as a tool of intimidation in the hands of the government doesn't know what he's talking about. MalteseKnight 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could find the time it might be more urgent to write more on Murat Belge.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, what is significant about Lagendijk is that it was an attempt to use the law against a foreign national. As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), all the other examples in the article pertain to Turkish citizens. - Che Nuevara 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new law vs old law

Article 301 was introduced as part of a package of penal-law reform in the process preceding the opening of negotations for Turkish membership of the European Union. I have heard that this law is an improvement (from the POV of the EU) of a previous law, which had a similar intention but was much stricter (either applied to more cases, or had stronger penalties, or both).

If anybody knows the details, it would be interesting to have a short paragraph about the situation before June 1, 2005, and about the differences to the current law.

Aleph4 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amnesty International

I slightly expanded the mention of Amnesty International's views in the article text - however I also feel that the Amnesty International logo (Amnesty International.svg) was superfluous in this article, therefore I am boldly (WP:BOLD) removing it. If you wish to re-add it, please justify here. Thanks. -- 201.51.211.130 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the logo a couple of days ago, along with Pamuk, since the article had no pictures and there was a photo request on the talk page. It's fair use and fairly superfluous really, so I don't mind at all. The one picture should be enough for now anyway, if any especially relevant free use images are suitable they can be added in due course. Richard001 01:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confused

From [3]:

“

The new paragraph was allegedly aimed at ensuring increased freedom of opinion and was part of reforms adopted by the Turkish state as a condition for the country’s future admission into the European Union.

”

Is this law supposed to be replacing a more restrictive law? That's the only scenario I can come up with, off hand, in which a law outlawing opinions could be seen as increasing freedom of opinions.

If that's not the case, then what am I missing? TerraFrost 05:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old law: Article 159 text

I find this text of old law TCK 159 (Article 159) as modified in January 2002 and Agost 2002 and which in 2005 was replaced by TCK 301:[4][5]

Madde 159. – (1) Türklüğü, Türk milletini, Türkiye devletini, Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi'ni, Bakanlar Kurulunu, bakanlıkları, adliyeyi, devletin askeri veya emniyet ve muhafaza kuvvetlerini veya bunları temsil eden bir kısmını alenen tahkir ve tezyif eden kimseye bir yıldan üç yıla kadar hapis cezası verilir.

(2) Birinci fıkrada yazılı cürümlerin işlenmesinde tahkir ve tezyif edilen açıkça belirtilmemiş olsa bile, ona yönelik bulunduğunda tereddüt edilmeyecek bir durum varsa, tahkir ve tezyif edilen açıklanmış gibi kabul edilir.

(3) Türkiye Cumhuriyeti kanunlarına veya Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi kararlarına alenen sövenlere bir aydan altı aya kadar hapis cezası verilir.

(4) Türklüğü, Türk milletini veya Türkiye devletini tahkir ve tezyif, yabancı memlekette bir Türk vatandaşı tarafından işlenirse verilecek ceza üçte biri oranında artırılır.

(5) Birinci fıkrada sayılan organları veya kurumları tahkir ve tezyif kastı bulunmaksızın, sadece eleştirmek maksadıyla yapılan yazılı, sözlü veya görüntülü düşünce açıklamaları cezayı gerektirmez.

If someone can translate then please to. Hevesli 08:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DO NOT LIE

In the article it is said that: "Hrant Dink (featured in the genocide documentary film Screamers) was also brought to trial for insulting Turkishness by mentioning the Armenian Genocide.". This is a slander. In Turkey in media Armenian Genocide Allegations are done. Mr Dink was not send to prison. He was not prosecuted because of his ideas about 1914-1922 incidents. He was found guilty since he said Turks are dirty bloodded. What he said is:"Türkten boşalacak o zehirli kanın yerini dolduracak temiz kan, Ermeni'nin Ermenistan'la kuracağı asil damarında mevcuttur. Yeter ki mevcudiyetinin farkında olsun.". I think it is not hard to reach the result text of the court. So do not try to hide the truth. I think Wikipedia is stg like Orientalism! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.113.165 (talk • contribs) 16:17, February 26, 2007 (UTC).

OK, let's get this straight -- you say it is "slander" to say that Hrant Dink was brought to trial. You say that he was not prosecuted or sent to prison, but then you say he was found guilty... so what are you trying to say? You sound like a stuttering fuck. If you are claiming that all Hrant Dink was prosecuted for was calling turks "dirty bloodded" (as you spelled it), a quick google search doesn't back you up and shows YOU to be the liar... Here is what Amnesty USA and the BBC say in their reports:

Amnesty USA said: Hrant Dink is a journalist and the editor of the Armenian-language weekly newspaper Agos, which is published in Istanbul. On 7 October 2005, Hrant Dink was given a six-month suspended prison sentence by the Sisli Court of First Instance No. 2 in Istanbul for “denigrating Turkishness” in an article he wrote on Armenian identity. According to the prosecutor in the case, Hrant Dink had written his article with the intention of denigrating Turkish national identity. The court suspended the sentence as the journalist had no previous convictions, on condition that he does not repeat the offence. Hrant Dink is currently appealing the decision. However, he is also being prosecuted under Article 301 for another offence (see below). Should he be imprisoned, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience. http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGEUR440352005

The BBC said: Dink, 53, was found guilty more than a year ago of insulting Turkish identity after he wrote an article which addressed the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians nine decades ago. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6279241.stm)

Since when was writing an article on "Armenian Identity" which is what he was sentenced for the same as saying "turks are dirty bloodded?" Since when is "an article which addressed the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians" the same thing as saying turks are "dirty bloodded?" You don't sound very neutral... show me an official news article from a NON-extremist, NON-turkish website saying that Hrant Dink did what you claim, and we'll go from there... MalteseKnight 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral or not, the fact is that Dink's conviction for denigrating Turkishness was not based on mentioning the Armenian Genocide, but on his words Türk'ten boşalacak o zehirli kan. The meaning of this is not fully clear even to native speakers of Turkish, but literally it means something like "the poisoned blood that will drain away from the Turks". This was interpreted by the high court as implying that Turkish blood is poisonous and therefore denigrating Turkishness. The prosecutor at the court of appeals had asked for acquittal, saying that the words should be interpreted in context and were not intended to denigrate Turkishness.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So AT BEST, the person who posted above is taking the comments out of context... though I've yet to see a source. In the end, there's no need to put in a subject line called "DO NOT LIE" simply to take one's comments out of context and post them up, IF Dink actually did make those comments... I will delete this thread unless someone can show that there is something useful to come of it... MalteseKnight 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The title of the thread violates AGF and is objectionable, but the thread itself serves as a reminder that the present formulation in the image caption (as well as the suggestion evoked by the use of this specific image) is factually incorrect. The correct information can be found in our article Hrant Dink. Here are some sources commenting specifically on the court case(s): http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=65648, http://www.bianet.org/2006/11/01_eng/news90480.htm. The statement that the conviction is based on a mention of the Armenian Genocide can be found in many newspaper articles, which however simply means they all got it wrong; the facts of the case are a bit more complicated. I can understand the urge to keep hammering in the genocide charge in face of the denialism of the Turkish state, but this should not go at the expense of factual correctness.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)